Absurdity of Morality Apart From God

[Stoic]

"LONC merely states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time..."

But still true and absolute....

Just like the rule that you can't castle after your king has moved is absolute, as long as you are playing by the standard rules of chess.

[seer]

Just like the rule that you can't castle after your king has moved is absolute, as long as you are playing by the standard rules of chess.

So again, in theory, your above statement can have completely opposite meanings. If the LONC is not absolute - universally.

[Stoic]

So again, in theory, your above statement can have completely opposite meanings. If the LONC is not absolute - universally.

No, even if the LONC is not absolute, there can be statements that are true and not false.

[seer]

No, even if the LONC is not absolute, there can be statements that are true and not false.

Why? How?

[Stoic]

Why? How?

The LONC states that a statement CANNOT be true and false at the same time.

If the LONC is not absolute, then you can conclude that some statements MAY be true and false at the same time, not that all statements MUST be true and false at the same time.

[seer]

The LONC states that a statement CANNOT be true and false at the same time.

If the LONC is not absolute, then you can conclude that some statements MAY be true and false at the same time, not that all statements MUST be true and false at the same time.

And how do you know that the your statement is one that doesn't fall into the true/false category? How could we tell?

[Stoic]

And how do you know that the your statement is one that doesn't fall into the true/false category? How could we tell?

How do you know if any statement is true or false?

[seer]

How do you know if any statement is true or false?

That is not what I asked, how do we know when a statement doesn't fall into the true/false category? If I say that the sun exists, if the LONC doesn't hold universally, the sun could both exist and not exist at the moment I make that claim.

[Stoic]

That is not what I asked, how do we know when a statement doesn't fall into the true/false category? If I say that the sun exists, if the LONC doesn't hold universally, the sun could both exist and not exist at the moment I make that claim.

Even if you've abandoned classical logic, I'd think you would need some reason to believe that the sun does not exist before you say that it does not exist.

[Tassman]

"LONC merely states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time..."

But still true and absolute....

Only inasmuch as any tautology is “true and absolute”. But essentiality any statement that is obviously true says nothing new or interesting.

[seer]

Even if you've abandoned classical logic, I'd think you would need some reason to believe that the sun does not exist before you say that it does not exist.

I'm not abandoning classic logic, you are. And if the sun, in theory, could both exist and not exist at the same moment how would one demonstrate it's non-existence? Just to ask the question points to the irrationality of your position.

[seer]

Only inasmuch as any tautology is “true and absolute”. But essentiality any statement that is obviously true says nothing new or interesting.

No, it obviously tells us it is true and absolute. And the basis for all rationality and science.

[Stoic]

I'm not abandoning classic logic, you are.

I wasn't using "you" as the second person singular in that sentence. Feel free to substitute it's synonym "one" instead.

Neither of us is abandoning classical logic. If one of us did without the agreement of the other, we wouldn't be able to communicate.

Of course, that leads to difficulties in discussing the alleged absoluteness of classical logic, since it tempts one to use classical logic to prove that classical logic is absolute, which would be circular.

And if the sun, in theory, could both exist and not exist at the same moment how would one demonstrate it's non-existence? Just to ask the question points to the irrationality of your position.

The non-absoluteness of the LONC does not necessarily entail that the sun, in theory, could both exist and not exist at the same moment.

[Tassman]

No, it obviously tells us it is true and absolute. And the basis for all rationality and science.

No, the Law of Noncontradiction is only absolute in that we have decided that it is. It’s simply a rule of language to ensure consistency and prevent false inferences. And without ‘probably theory’ it doesn’t function at all with Quantum Physics, which is conditional NOT absolute.

[seer]

No, the Law of Noncontradiction is only absolute in that we have decided that it is. It’s simply a rule of language to ensure consistency and prevent false inferences. And without ‘probably theory’ it doesn’t function at all with Quantum Physics, which is conditional NOT absolute.

So in theory the sun could both exist and not exist at the same moment? And probably theory does not violate the LONC - if you think otherwise show me how?